Update:

This update is made simply to point out the problem with Rick Santorum’s speech, excerpted below, as many are apparently having difficulty seeing it. I apologize for not making it clearer, earlier.

The problem lays in two sentences:

“And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.

“…mainline Protestantism…. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

2/19/2012 @ 1:50pm CT

It was almost an excellent and critically important speech, but then…

In the Daily Caller, emphasis (ed., in black at the end of the article) ours:

Santorum in 2008: Mainline Protestantism ‘in shambles … gone from the world of Christianity’ [AUDIO]

By David Martosko – The Daily Caller   12:42 AM 02/18/2012

A speech former Senator Rick Santorum delivered at a Catholic college in 2008 began burning up the left-wing blogosphere Friday afternoon. At Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, Santorum argued that Satan was using the national debate over abortion as a tool to destroy the institutions of American culture — including universities, the government, popular culture, and mainline Protestant churches.

“This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war at all. This is a spiritual war,” Santorum said during his August 29, 2008 speech. “And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country, the United States of America.”

The portion of his remarks that have attracted the most attention — including scorn from the liberal People for the American Way, which identified the university’s podcast of Santorum’s speech on Friday — concern his view that Protestant churches have been compromised by that “spiritual war” over the question of when life begins.

Santorum is a devout Roman Catholic.

(LISTEN: Excerpt from Santorum’s 2008 speech at Ave Maria University)

“Once the colleges fell, and those who were being educated in our institutions,” he said during the speech, “the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘Well, wait, the Catholic Church?’ No.”

“We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic. Sure, the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic. Mainstream, mainline Protestantism.

“And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. So they attacked mainline Protestantism, they attacked the Church, and what better way to go after smart people who also believe they’re pious — to use both vanity and pride to go after the Church.”

continues

Many have now seen the videos of Santorum that are circulating, as he goes out of his way to assail libertarians (link) and the Tea Party (link). Now we can add to the list, Baptists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

I observed Rick Santorum in the U.S. Congress carefully. He can be one of the best rhetoricians and debaters out there. However, as a tendency, when he is on his game, he is attacking. And he attacks even those with whom he should be coalescing.

Here is the reality. Protestant churches, as the Roman papal church, are split. They are hardly “gone from Christianity.” This behavior now begs us to be reminded that Rick Santorum bears allegiance to another city-state nation, The Vatican. Has he issued a speech declaring himself completely American, politically, as did John Kennedy?

Writes Kelleigh Nelson, to remind us of the question of just how Vatican oriented Santorum could be:

Santorum would not be our first Catholic president. In 2002, Rick traveled to Rome to speak at a centenary celebration of the birth of Saint Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei. He and his wife were invested as Knight and Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta in a ceremony at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York on November 12, 2004.

These newly spreading words from Santorum hardly present him as the new, nice guy conservative on the scene, apparently the basis for his popularity over the last few weeks. For one, I am not at all sure I would want him in the White House and am loathe to see him nominated, to represent what must be an unified and energized conservative coalition (though I would not vote for anti-sovereignty Quisling, pro-Agenda-21 Romney, even in the General Election were he a candidate).

Why the Daily Caller would issue this story before the Romney-critical Michigan Primary, a state in which Santorum leads in the polling, is another pertinent question. I fear that with it, Romney may now win in Michigan. Further, it becomes likely that the Gingrich campaign will be reinvigorated in the South, which may be the silver lining to this dark cloud.

Accuracy in Media

While the mainstream media are still overwhelmingly intent on seeing Barack Obama reelected as President, a number of journalists and news organizations are apparently having second thoughts. Or at least they are willing to examine the claims and representations that the Obama administration continues to put forth. This has been the surprising case regarding Obama’s State of the Union address in late January and the budget that he proposed in mid-February. Hopefully this may mark a turning point in how the media allow themselves to be used by the Obama administration, but don’t count on it. More likely it is isolated incidents of self-respect, and an acknowledgement that they can differentiate between normal political spin and outright lies.

The double standard still could not be more clear. During the many Republican debates there has been a constant effort to get the candidates to provide sound bites for Democratic ads during the general election, calling each other liars and flip-floppers, moderates, liberals, influence peddlers, and plutocrats. The ABC New Hampshire debate in which George Stephanopoulos spent a substantial amount of time on the burning issue of whether or not states have the right to ban contraception seemed like a Saturday Night Live skit in how it attempted to make the candidates appear radical. But now it looks more like coordination with the White House in preparation for their battle to make contraception a “free” entitlement for all under ObamaCare.

President Obama rarely faces such questions. He has been able to largely stay above the fray, managing the news flow, picking softball interviewers like NBC’s Matt Lauer before the Super Bowl, and ABC’s Diane Sawyer a few days before that. But what is new, and has the ability to change the dynamics, is that some of the loyal left in the media have begun to actually directly challenge Obama’s claims and narrative. Not enough of them, but it is starting to happen.

There are still hard-to-believe spectacles such as the Super Bowl on February 4 that played like an infomercial for the reelection of President Obama, in front of an audience estimated at 110 million people. But what is new is that within a day of the President’s State of the Union (SOTU) address, the Associated Press (AP) and The Washington Post were both out with detailed refutations of some of Obama’s signature claims—claims to do with the auto industry, the green energy industry, job creation, the size and scope of government under his term in office, Afghanistan, tax fairness, energy production, and relations with Israel.

During halftime of the Super Bowl was the much talked about two-minute Chrysler ad, with Clint Eastwood, calling it “halftime in America” and seeming to endorse a second Obama term, while suggesting the President was in the middle of a great accomplishment, namely saving America’s auto industry and with it the city of Detroit, Michigan.

Eastwood denied that he intended anything political with the ad, and it’s hard not to take Dirty Harry at his word. But the political overtones were clear, even to some of the giddiest of Obama’s allies in the media. For example, Frank Rich, formerly of The New York Times, currently with New York magazine, was on CNN the following night with Piers Morgan on his weekday show. Here was their take on the ad:

MORGAN: I mean, I don’t care what Chrysler says or Clint Eastwood, if you’re Barack Obama watching the Super Bowl, as I’m sure he was with his family yesterday, and up pops Clint Eastwood, one of the biggest movie stars in the world, highlighting one of your big success stories in this financial crisis, the successful bailing out of the car industry, and saying we’re halftime, America, well, the message is pretty clear, isn’t it? Give the guy another half.

RICH: Yes, I mean, for instance, one thing about this ad that’s just fascinating, is it has a “Morning in America” Reagan ad feel to it. It feels almost like a Reagan ad and yet you’re exactly right. It’s basically saying it was a good thing to bail out Detroit, and let’s not forget that Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee actually wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times saying “let Detroit fail. Let these companies go bankrupt.” And so you have Clint Eastwood, who isn’t at least normally a Republican and may well not have had any political motives, lending his incredible prestige and classic American voice and face to this Reaganesque message that’s in favor essentially of Democratic policies during this recession. It’s amazing.

MORGAN: I don’t know who they’re going to try—how they’re going to try and pretend this is not a political ad. And if it is, it really ratchets up this whole Obama-Hollywood thing. Most of the Hollywood stars I’ve been talking to appear to have gone a bit lukewarm with Barack Obama. But you can’t get better than Clint Eastwood, I don’t think.”

And what about Frank Rich’s statement about Mitt Romney’s op-ed in the Times—that Romney said, “let Detroit fail? Let these companies go bankrupt.” What Romney actually wrote in that piece for the Times was this:

“A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk…In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

Yet Rich was repeating what Obama and others have said in characterizing Romney’s approach. The choice Obama made was a federal bailout of about $85 billion (including the $20 billion the Bush administration had offered as a bridge loan before he left office) in which for the first time, the secured bondholders, the people who had invested their dollars with the assurance that they were first in line should the company fail, got pushed to the back of the line, while the United Auto Workers came to own 55% of Chrysler, with no wage cuts.

But apparently Joe Klein of Time magazine didn’t see it the same way Frank Rich and Piers Morgan saw it—as a Democratic dream ad. Instead Klein cited Karl Rove, “the master Republican strategist,” as having been “offended” by the ad. Klein said that “any normal person watching this ad had to be thrilled—Eastwood’s voice, the rousing script, the fighting spirit: ‘This country can’t be knocked out with one punch we get right up again when we do the world’s going to hear the roar of our engines.’” Klein said that Rove saw the ad as “a Chicago style payback from Chrysler to Barack Obama for bailing out the company.”

Then Klein went off unhinged into a hyperbolic, left-wing rant saying that Rove lives in a world in which “Obama is the Antichrist…and maybe even, who knows, a secret Muslim immigrant.” At least Klein’s liberal brethren, Frank Rich and Piers Morgan, understood exactly what this ad was about, and they were in full agreement with Rove, though obviously from a different perspective.

Klein went on to peddle the same falsehood as Frank Rich—that Romney took the position that “Detroit should be allowed to fail.”

In the end, both Chrysler and GM went into and came out of bankruptcy only after the $85 billion bailout, with the U.S. government owning 61% of GM and the UAW pension fund owning 55% of Chrysler. The only way either can be considered profitable is by factoring in a $45 billion tax credit granted by the government, and still, the taxpayers are more than $23 billion in the hole.

The unknowable is how the companies would be doing if they had gone through managed bankruptcies, without setting unfortunate precedents related to secured bondholders and crony capitalism.

But that is far from the only falsehood or misrepresentation put forth by the Obama administration. Most are allowed to pass, and receive little examination by the media as to their accuracy.

A word or two on the so-called fact checkers. In December of last year The Weekly Standard ran an article called “Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking.’” While pointing out that “Media fact checking endeavors have never been more popular and influential than they are now,” they argued that too often they represent a liberal ideological bias rather than “providing an impartial referee to help readers sort out acrimonious and hyperbolic political disputes.” Perhaps The Weekly Standard provided a service, pushing some of the fact checkers, like The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, the AP and Bloomberg, to become more objective.

Here are some examples from both the January SOTU and the February budget released by the President, as analyzed by these fact-checking services:

The Washington Post

From Glenn Kessler, the Post Fact Checker, on the State of the Union (SOTU) address:

OBAMA: “Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

KESSLER: “This is fanciful budget math. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were funded with borrowed money, so what Obama is really asking for is an increase in domestic spending relative to the Pentagon. The United States is still running huge deficits, so none of this imagined savings would “pay down the debt” until the United States once again began running surpluses. Instead, his proposal would continue to add to the debt.”

OBAMA: “Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years.”

KESSLER: “Obama’s self-congratulatory tone aside, the most striking thing about this list is that it does not include any cities in the Islamic world. Obama had made a high-profile speech in Cairo in 2009 designed to bolster the U.S. image; judging by recent polling, his effort has been a failure. The Pew Research Center in May said that both the U.S. favorability rating and confidence in Obama had fallen sharply since 2009. In Turkey, a NATO ally, for instance, the confidence in Obama fell from 33 percent in 2009 to 11 percent in 2011; in Jordan, another key ally, the favorability rating for the United States fell from 25 percent in 2009 to 13 percent in 2011…The survey said that Obama’s handling of the political change spawned by the Arab Spring was a key factor in the slumping numbers.”

The AP on SOTU

OBAMA: “Our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”

THE FACTS: “That’s only half true. About half of the more than 30 million uninsured Americans expected to gain coverage through the health care law will be enrolled in a government program. Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, will be expanded starting in 2014 to cover childless adults living near the poverty line…The other half will be enrolled in private health plans through new state-based insurance markets. But many of them will be receiving federal subsidies to make their premiums more affordable. And that’s a government program, too.”

OBAMA: “The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

THE FACTS: “Obama is more sanguine about progress in Afghanistan than his own intelligence apparatus. The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan warns that the Taliban will grow stronger, using fledgling talks with the U.S. to gain credibility and stall until U.S. troops leave, while continuing to fight for more territory. The classified assessment, described to The AP by officials who have seen it, says the Afghan government hasn’t been able to establish credibility with its people, and predicts the Taliban and warlords will largely control the countryside.”

The AP on Obama’s Budget

BUDGET: “It counts on phantom savings [about $850 billion] from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s underpinned by tax increases Republicans won’t let happen and program cuts fellow Democrats in Congress are all but certain to block…And it assumes rates of growth that the economy will have to become strikingly undead to achieve.”

REALITY: “There is no direct peace dividend from ending the wars because the government borrowed to pay for them. The government would have to keep borrowing that amount of money to have it to spend on something else.”

BUDGET: “Forecasts healthy growth in years ahead, with GDP growth predicted to reach 4 percent in 2014 and 4.2 percent in 2015.”

REALITY: “It’s obviously too soon to know, but reputable private forecasts are not nearly as rosy as the administration’s assumptions, and their track record tends to be better. They are generally forecasting a percentage point lower or close to that, a huge difference, and don’t see reaching 4 percent growth in the foreseeable future…Last year, the administration built its proposed budget on a projection of 2.7 percent growth in 2011; it turned out to be 1.7 …Such projections are key because the government’s spending and debt plans rest on how much revenue can be expected to come in.”

Investor’s Business Daily—Fairness (SOTU):

OBAMA: “We need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.”

IBD: “The claim that the rich don’t pay their fair share is simply untrue. The current tax code is extremely progressive, more progressive in fact than it was back in 1979, according to the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the richest 1% today accounts for 36% of all income taxes paid, while nearly half of taxpayers owe nothing at all, or get cash back. If that isn’t fair, Obama owes it to the country to describe just what sort of distribution would be fair.”

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported in early February that the unemployment rate had fallen to 8.3%, that was great news, right? But the report showed that in that same month, a record 1.2 million Americans left the labor force. And according to an article in SmartMoney.com last December, “the real unemployment figure including all discouraged workers who stopped looking for work is closer to a staggering 22.6%.”

The Washington Times

(From an article titled “Obama’s Made Up Jobless Numbers,” by Joseph Curl:)

When the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5 percent in December, the Financial Times wasn’t convinced. “According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11%.”

Curl argues that the BLS has been “busy rewriting the rules” for counting the unemployed, presumably to make sure that come election time, the official unemployment rate will be 8% or less, allowing Obama to hit his mark.

These are just a few of many examples of phony and misleading claims by the White House that are beginning to be challenged by the mainstream media, but which still are not getting nearly the attention they deserve. Fact checking should be a process reflected in every article or story. The problem is that these stories don’t have any traction in the broadcast media, and thus, are largely ignored.•

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of AIM.

Dear Fellow Media Watchdogs:

AIM returned to CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, from February 9-11. As we’ve done for the past several years, we presented the annual Reed Irvine Awards, one for investigative journalism to CBS’s intrepid investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, and one for grassroots journalism to Dana Loesch, a blogger turned Tea Party activist who is now the Editor-in-Chief of Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism website.

We received a lot of attention from articles in The Washington Post, Politico, Big Journalism and other sites when the far-left, George Soros-funded Media Matters for America attempted to browbeat CBS News into rejecting the award for Ms. Attkisson. Though it turned out that she was unable to attend because of an assignment, they did send the Washington bureau chief of CBS News, Chris Isham, who graciously accepted the award on her behalf.

Then, on Sunday, February 12, The Daily Caller (DC), co-founded by Tucker Carlson, last year’s winner of the Reed Irvine Award for grassroots journalism, broke part one of an explosive series about Media Matters. They reported that “Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. [David] Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by The DC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.”

And that was just the beginning. Memos discussed plans to hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News personnel, and others in the conservative movement. A source told The DC that Media Matters staff “were pretty much writing their prime time” talking points for the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff,” they bragged. There were also reports of erratic behavior by the group’s founder, one-time conservative journalist David Brock.

AIM also gave a Reed Irvine Lifetime Achievement Award to Capt. Charles Rozier (USN Ret.), who still volunteers as head of the Speakers Bureau at AIM at age 91, after 15 years. Charlie is a veteran of D-Day, the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and was the Captain of the ship that raised the nuclear-armed Soviet submarine during the Cuban missile crisis. Contact him if you need a speaker•

For Accuracy in Media
Roger Aronoff

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

What if the United States and Canada bore three times as much oil as Saudi Arabia?

Add that to the vast amounts of U.S. natural gas and coal reserves.

Now, what if the globalist, central bankster controllers and their tycoons and barons have known this and have intended to horde energy here, as they horde gold, for the sake of their own mega-wealth and mega-power?

Suppose they wish to keep our energy resources in reserve, so with low supply meeting high demand, they may profiteer in the present, while their surreptitious work of stealing American resources and making a colony of America itself, proceeds to its future outcome.

This is being done as we speak, via U.N. Agenda 21, its connection to triple bottom line banking and lending, White House Executive Orders, EPA regulations, and by other means.

That is a thesis which is becoming widely discussed among independent Internet journalists and researchers. Among them is William Kay, whom we interviewed not long ago. He spelled it out, then (see “Gulag Night: Eco-Fascism in America; Guests: William Kay & Mark Musser“). More on this, soon.

But, so far, no prominent American politician has hit this subject matter on the head, though Ron Paul has nipped at it.

Now, Newt Gingrich discusses the real research data on American energy reserves and the ability for the United States to not only be energy independent but to become an energy exporter, as well. A former Speaker of the House should know this stuff, now shouldn’t he? Especially if that person is the researcher of the world of the past, present, and future, that Gingrich is.

He explains in this video, posted just a few days ago.

Now, are we coming to understand why the bankster-globalist-tainted elitists of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, plus the Rockefellerized, Marxstream media, who do as they are indoctrinated, as they are told, and as they are controlled, hate the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin?

Let us pray for those two.

And let us defend and support them, ourselves.

Footnote: TPTB = the powers that be

David Janda reports and relates from DaveJanda.com and Operation Freedom.

Janda also presents critically important information from American sovereignty patriot, Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates, on the war on America in your neighborhood, Agenda 21.

Operation Freedom

Every Sunday from 3-5 P.M., WAAM Talk 1600 turns on the bright lights and fires up its own Operating Room. Dr. Dave Janda, an orthopedic surgeon and health care policy analyst, hosts a two hour interactive “dissection” of current events that are impacting every person, family and business in our community and country. Dave brings to the operating table information the main stream media either ignores or is afraid to bring to light.

Every week Dave will bring featured guests to WAAM’s Operating Room that have a background in health care, economics, finance, and geo-politics discussing current events. The goal of every show… when the listener “leaves the operating room” they are better off and on the road to a better life.

February 19, 2012

Topics discussed: Agenda 21, sustainable development, smart growth, ICLEI, the erosion of unalienable rights including property, Wildlands Network, Rural Council, the global elite, debt enslavement,fear, default,market crash, destruction of the dollar, hyperinflation, Wachovia Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, Money laundering for the drug trade, Winston Churchill   First Hour Guest: Michael Shaw – President, Freedom Advocates (www.freedomadvocates.org)   Second Hour Guest: Robert Davi – famed actor, director,singer and political activist (www.davisingssinatra.com)

Download:

• FULL SHOW
• Michael Shaw
• Robert Davi
• Janda on The Drug Smuggling Banks

Accuracy in Media

Many were astounded that Scarborough was the emcee of a major CPAC event. Scarborough’s real mission was to introduce Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin at a banquet sponsored by Newsmax but he couldn’t resist taking shots at GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, such as saying something about a moon base, one of Gingrich’s more controversial proposals. Gingrich, of course, wasn’t there to defend himself; he spoke to this CPAC on another occasion. Conservatives at my table agreed that Scarborough’s cheap shots at Gingrich were in bad taste. I felt bad for Ryan being introduced in such a tawdry manner.

In order to rub salt in the wounds, Scarborough brought along his liberal MSNBC sidekick Mika Brzezinski, who sat at one of the up-front banquet tables. She posed for pictures with a number of young conservatives who must have thought she was a Hollywood starlet of some kind. For his part, Scarborough has posted photos of himself at CPAC, under the title, “Morning Joe Invades CPAC.” The use of the term “invasion” is the correct one. They invaded the conservative space.

All of this is background information for what has happened to Buchanan and his place in the conservative movement. It’s bad enough that he was fired from MSNBC. In fact, he had been “suspended” weeks before the firing became official. While Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative was at CPAC, Buchanan was not.

Buchanan seems to be considered anathema by some newcomers to the conservative movement, mostly because of his criticism of America’s foreign wars and pro-Israel foreign policy under George W. Bush. One can criticize those stands and his occasional use of inappropriate language on sensitive issues while acknowledging Buchanan’s stature and place in the conservative movement.

An editorial writer at a young age who was trained in journalism, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of U.S. politics. He has written a number of books, some more controversial than others, as a look at the top of his website will attest. He crossed into government service by working for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and later ran for president himself. At Reagan’s service, Buchanan was a fierce advocate for freedom against communism.

I first met Buchanan while working for Accuracy in Media. AIM founder Reed Irvine admired and respected Buchanan. This was the norm among conservatives who recognized Buchanan as a fighter against liberals in the media and elsewhere. Buchanan asked me to write an article for his newsletter, “Patrick J. Buchanan From the Right,” about the rise of conservative talk radio. I had hosted a radio show in the early 1990s.

While Buchanan was in the Reagan White House as communications director in the 1980s, I had the opportunity to fill in as the conservative co-host of a then-popular CNN program, “Crossfire.” Buchanan had been the conservative co-host and Tom Braden was the liberal co-host. The “crossfire” aspect also included the fact that there were conservative and liberal guests who sat in the middle, getting questions from both sides. I joked that the slogan of the program was, “Don’t talk while I’m interrupting.” I got into trouble with the producers when I asked the Ambassador from Libya to “please shut up” after he insisted at length that Libya was not involved in international terrorism. Nevertheless, the show had a lot of educational value and was great fun. It was advocacy journalism at its best.

The days of “Crossfire” are gone. The show was cancelled and a true “crossfire” on the issues is not permitted any more by some important media organizations which cower in fear when attacked by the left. It is significant that Buchanan has been forced off the air essentially by the same left-wing forces that previously claimed the scalp of Glenn Beck, who departed from Fox News because of his scrutiny of anti-American hedge fund billionaire George Soros. In both cases, the Soros-funded Media Matters and the Van Jones-founded Color of Change played roles in their ouster.

On his Politico blog, Scarborough issued a joint statement with Brzezinski: “Everyone at Morning Joe considers Pat Buchanan to be a friend and a member of the family. Even though we strongly disagree with the contents of Pat’s latest book, Mika and I believe those differences should have been debated in public. An open dialogue with Morning Joe regulars like Al Sharpton and Harold Ford, Jr. could have developed into an important debate on the future of race relations in America. Because we believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, Mika and I strongly disagree with this outcome. We understand that the parting was amicable. Still, we will miss Pat.”

Amicable? I see no evidence of that. Buchanan told Sean Hannity on his Fox News program that he had been the victim of an un-American blacklisting for his views on racial matters, as expressed in his new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

It is significant that black agitator Al Sharpton, who made false racial allegations against white police officers in the notorious Tawana Brawley case, continues on the air on MSNBC while Buchanan has been let go. This has everything to do with the fact that Sharpton, a “Morning Joe” regular, is a loyal stooge of Obama and a faithful Democrat. It seems he will remain a member of the MSNBC “family” no matter what he says or does.

But to speak up for the interests of what Buchanan would call European-Americans, in terms of defending the Christian foundations of the U.S., is a grievous sin to the liberals. This is what the blacklisting of Buchanan really means. It is telling that Scarborough apparently felt compelled to denounce Buchanan’s views while lamenting his leaving the MSNBC “family.”

Another difference is that the buffoonish Sharpton has the intellectual depth of a saucer, while Buchanan has a deep knowledge of history. Buchanan has the intellectual ammunition to argue and win his arguments. Taking Buchanan to task for some of his comments should not mean conservatives have to fall into the trap of reading him out of the media and the conservative movement.

Conservatives should be able to disagree with his views and conclusions, without using the language of the left to vilify him.

It is disappointing to see Andrew Breitbart’s usually excellent BigJournalism.com linking to an article that calls Buchanan an anti-Semite. The link was to a Pajamas Media article claiming Buchanan was fired for the wrong reason, implying that he should have been fired for a different reason. But firing is not the proper response for someone who was writing conservative editorials at an early age and taking on the liberal media when the writers at Pajamas Media were truly in their pajamas—and diapers. It seems like the Media Matters mentality exists on the right as well.

Sean Hannity is to be commended for giving Buchanan a chance on his Fox News program to defend himself and explain the reasons why he was fired. The trouble for Hannity is that Buchanan followed Glenn Beck out the door, as a result of the same kind of campaign waged by the same forces.

To be fair, Hannity should not condemn one ouster without examining the other. However, we know that he would be risking his job if he seriously investigated on the air why Fox buckled under to pressure from George Soros by getting rid of Beck. This story goes beyond political pressure to threats against Glenn Beck’s personnel, as we have already revealed and documented. The situation at Fox News, which hired feminist commentators Jehmu Greene and Sally Kohn to keep Media Matters at bay, is actually much worse than the sacking of Buchanan.

The bleak media landscape, as the presidential campaign goes forward, shows Fox News moving to the left and MSNBC moving further to the left.

Some viewers have objected to the cancellation of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show on the Fox Business Network. These complaints should be taken seriously. But his program never had the high ratings that Beck’s show did on the Fox News Channel. What’s more, Napolitano is not completely gone from the channel; he remains as a commentator on Fox News.

As for Joe Scarborough, he realizes that if he goes too far to the right he will meet the same fate as Buchanan. CPAC should repel his “invasion” the next time he tries to breach the gates. A serious conservative when he was elected to Congress, I worked with his staff on a bill to get the U.S. out of the United Nations. But today he is just a “token conservative” who isn’t that conservative at a cable channel that doesn’t believe in free speech and true diversity.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

More sabotage, this by default, from the Marxist mole president
Alaska not consulted

It appears Congress had nothing to do with this 7-island giveaway with tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds. The Department of the Interior says these islands are a source of billions of barrels of oil. Our president and the State Department can just give away American sovereign land – Alaskan land. A story like this leaves me speechless. I’ll let Joe Miller, a former US Senate candidate from Alaska, do the talking: (see an important update below)

World Net Daily (read the entire story here including the American historical connection to these islands):

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangell became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

Northwest of Wrangell are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.

The State Department’s maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return for giving up Alaska’s sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.

UPDATE 2-19-12 @ 9:18 a.m. CDT: The longer story is that this covert mission began under G.H.W. Bush, but the thing to remember is that not he, nor any president following made the giveaway reality. Reader Sheri left a link to another WND report dated May 2000. Here’s a snippet:

The tranfer would have gone unnoticed were it not for State Department Watch, a Washington-based group that monitors State Department acitivities.

Retired U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Carl Olson, who heads State Department Watch, recently checked with the Census Bureau, asking if it had plans to count the inhabitants of these disputed islands in the current census.

Olson was stunned by the response he received from the Census Bureau.

“Census Bureau officials were informed by the U.S. Department of State that these islands remain under the jurisdiction of Russia,” wrote Kenneth Prewitt, director of the Census Bureau in a letter to Olson.

“Without confirmation and appropriate documentation from the Department of State to the contrary, the Census Bureau cannot include these islands as part of the State of Alaska,” Prewitt concluded.

Americans Become Russians

Olson notes that the Census Bureau, with the approval of the State Dept., has just stripped Americans of their citizenship.

Consider the inhabitants of Wrangell Island, the largest of eight disputed islands – five lying in the Arctic Ocean and three in the Bering Sea.

Geographically speaking, the island’s inhabitants would also be citizens of the state of Alaska since no other American state comes even close to the proximity of the islands.

But if anyone desired to visit Wrangell Island, they would be greeted not by the Stars and Stripes waving proudly in the brisk air but by a Russian military tower.

According to Olson, the islands including Wrangell have 18 Russian soldiers and one officer and 50 to 100 inhabitants.

Olson insists these people have been made to endure foreign occupation by the Russian military and believes the U.S. government should do something about taking the islands back.

NewsMax.com contacted Mark Seidenberg, a former senior traffic management specialist within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and asked him if he believed the United States should pursue its sovereignty on the islands. Seidenberg, without hesitation, said “yes.”

The article linked above says after Congress ratified the Maritime Boundary Treaty, Russia did not sign it. At that time, the industry was up-in-arms. American fisherman did not want to lose their right to the waters in the area. Russians didn’t care.

Nevertheless, former U.S. Secretary of State Jim Baker and the Soviet Union’s Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze signed a secretive executive agreement the year before that bound both governments to the treaty. ["Executive Agreement!"]

Currently, Russia is demanding hundreds of millions of pounds more fishing rights from the United States that would undermine the Alaskan fish industry and, subsequently, the state’s economy.

A wealth of petroleum and natural gas hang in the balance as well.

Again, this is 2000:

Even though now recognizing Russian jurisdiction over the islands, the State Department had testified at the June 13, 1991, treaty hearing that the maritime boundary agreement “does not recognize Soviet sovereignty over these [five Arctic] islands.”

Drink Your Kool-Aid has more.

Thanks to LoopyLoo305

Gulag Note:

For another slice of this, see:  “Who Do these People Think they Are?“

As if we needed a reminder that America has a unique two party system—“the evil party and the stupid party”—Republican House Speaker Boehner has provided it yet again. He is blocking a floor vote on a bill that could create a million or more jobs –and at no cost to taxpayers.

That Boehner thinks this is smart politics tells you all you need to know about the bankruptcy of Beltway Republican strategic thinking.

The Legal Workforce Act, H.R.2885, would require all employers to use the federal E-Verify program to identify fake or stolen Social Security Numbers used by illegal workers. Participation by employers would be phased in over a two year period. The program is largely self-enforcing because the list of participating companies is posted on the Homeland Security Department web site and updated quarterly.

Over 300,000 employers already participate in this Social Security Number verification system at over 1,000,000 worksites. The program has an error rate of less than 1%. Currently the E-Verify program is required for most companies doing business with the federal government, and it is required of all employers in a half dozen states. In Colorado, companies doing business with state agencies have been using the program since 2006.

After extensive public hearings, last September the Legal Workforce Act was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee and then sent to the House Ways and Means Committee. It has languished there ever since.

This important bill – which has 74 cosponsors – is being buried by Speaker Boehner and the House Republican leadership: they have ordered the Ways and Means chairman to sit on the bill indefinitely. Translated, that means do not allow the bill to be sent to the floor for a vote.

What is behind this sabotage of a bill that is a keystone of an immigration enforcement agenda supported by 80% of all Republicans and 70% of independents? At a time of over 8% unemployment nationally, who is opposed to a system that helps guarantee that scarce jobs go to citizens and other legal workers? What’s going on?

Blocking H.R.2885 is only the latest example of Beltway Republican hostility to the immigration enforcement movement. When John McCain and his open-borders allies could not get their amnesty bills passed in 2006 and 2007, they resolved to block any meaningful legislation aimed at border security or interior enforcement. They were not able to block the Secure Fence Act of December, 2006, but they did succeed in amending and sabotaging it in the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2007. So, the double fence it authorized for 700 miles of the southwest border was never built.

The pattern is well established, but the political motivation behind that pattern is paradoxical. These jokers actually think they are doing the Republican Party a favor by suppressing immigration enforcement legislation. They worry the Republican Party will “lose the Hispanic vote” if such legislation is enacted.

Well, these political gurus have overlooked one little historical fact. The Republican Party has never HAD the Hispanic vote, so how can they lose it? Even their hero, President George Bush, could not get more than 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 after proclaiming his support for amnesty legislation. Republican congressional candidates have never earned more than 35% of the Hispanic vote nationally.

These supposedly brilliant Beltway strategists and pundits have strangely overlooked what happened in 2010: Every single Republican elected to an open seat in either the House or Senate in that magnificent landslide ran on a pro-enforcement platform! 

It is well established in poll after poll, including the polls sponsored by the liberal Pew Hispanic Center, that Hispanic voters do not put immigration issues at the top of their list of vital concerns. Ironically, this is well illustrated by Obama’s failure to expand his Hispanic support despite his shameless pandering to the National Council of La Raza through the administrative amnesty program.  Obama’s support among Hispanics has actually declined from the levels of 2008.

What lessons should Republicans draw from Obama’s pandering? That Republicans should imitate Obama? Do they hope to out-pander the Master Panderer?

In reality, Republicans have nothing to lose and much to gain by advancing a pro-enforcement agenda with features like mandatory E-Verify for employers, an end to automatic citizenship for children born to illegal aliens and tourists, and genuine border security. First, that agenda is good for the country, and then it’s smart politics as well. Is that formula too complicated for the Beltway Republicans like Speaker John Boehner?

Let’s not be naïve. Nothing will change the minds of these Nervous Nellies. They need to be replaced.

We need more than a new occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Republicans need new leadership in the Senate and the House as well. The debacle of the stalled Legal Workforce Act is only one more piece of evidence in a long train of stupidities and betrayals by Boehner and his crew.

It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.

Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.

NoisyRoom

From Drink Your Kool Aid:

On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed a secret executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

I can hear you saying that this is only about some tiny little islands and that they are closer to Russia than the US – why should we care? These islands are not tiny. And the true issue here is that they have a wealth of oil and resources on and around them. That’s the big deal. Plus, they’re ours – not Russia’s.

Why now, when this treaty has languished for 22 years? Well… Why not? It accomplishes a number of things for Obama. It takes a slap at the conservative state of Alaska and attempts to put her high-profile residents such as Sarah Palin and Joe Miller in their collective places. It caves to one of our biggest enemies, Russia, and weakens the US even more in their eyes. It gives precious energy resources away for nothing, thereby ensuring that energy prices will skyrocket even more in the US when that energy is needed. And who knows what other nefarious goals the deed accomplishes. Progressives are always figuring an angle and it never benefits US citizens – just the elite and powerful.

From WND:

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

In May of 1881, US explorers spotted the Jeannette and Henrietta Islands and claimed them for the United States. According to numerous sources, including the group State Department Watch, seven Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State, no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them. And of course, the Russians are claiming them for their own. The fight over Alaskan land has been going on since the 1800s and the Russians are claiming and taking any land anywhere they can find it that has oil or gas.

The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. They are getting ready to finalize the deal. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side with no input from Alaska, her leaders or her residents. How is that Constitutional? And don’t cite the Treaty Clause to me. This oversteps the bounds of that section by a wide margin. Thus the need for secrecy and no transparency on the deal. The founding fathers never envisioned a sitting President and the State Department just giving away American sovereign land.

And as far as a milquetoast, spineless Senate is concerned – every one of them that ratified this in 1991 that is still in office should be shown the door that leads to a rail out of town with a spiffy new coat of tar and feathers. This treaty makes an excellent argument for abolishing the 17th Amendment and returning to the true Constitutional principle in which senators were elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote. This is what you get when you bastardize and supersede Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

Who the hell do these people think they are? I’ll tell you… They truly believe they are the elite and that they are above your station – you are the riffraff, the serfs that only exist to serve them. They are royalty and their moniker is Progressive. They are the ruling class and the truly, obscenely wealthy and powerful. For too long we have let them rule as they see fit rather than by the will of the people. Obama is just the culmination of decades of inattention to the evil infiltrating our government’s halls. Time to send them all packing.

The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.

James Madison – The Federalist

That’s who they think they are; your King, your Lords, your Nobility. They don’t care what happened in 1787, they still think they own you.

Gulag Note:

More on this story: “Obama Steals Inhabited, Oil-Rich Alaskan Territory for Russia“

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton administrates the Noisy Room blog, where she documents the influences of those politically off the American course, called progressives. She is also a contributor to KeyWiki.org and her articles are featured in the daily Web publication, The Globe & Malevolence.

Working with us?

We work hard to save the sovereign United States of America.

Please circulate our reports, via email, your favorite forums, and social media — and how about putting some of our most pertinent information, including titles and links, in screen doors; it’s campaign season after all.

Are you interested in researching, or writing, or assistant editing for us? Please let us know: SerfsUp@GulagBound.com.

Accuracy in Media

Touting the theory of mutually assured destruction, which prevented the U.S. and the Soviet Union from annihilating one another with nuclear weapons, Zakaria suggested that Iran could be deterred from using nuclear weapons. He quoted Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, as saying that deterrence “is less disastrous than preventive war.” Rose is a former National Security Council official in the Clinton Administration and a prominent official of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Zakaria said that “While the Iranian regime is often called crazy, it has done much less to merit the term than did a regime such as Mao’s China. Over the past decade, there have been thousands of suicide bombings by Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Pakistanis, but not been a single suicide attack by an Iranian.”

This is deceptive to the point of dishonesty. Why would he go back in history to the time of Mao’s China, but only examine suicide bombings over the last ten years?

The answer is that the facts about Iranian suicide bombings do suggest a craziness on the part of the regime. The strange formulation of “over the past decade” enabled him to ignore the fact that, on October 23, 1983, Iran ordered and carried out the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel. An Iranian drove the car bomb into the barracks.

I attended and covered the 2003 trial in which the detailed evidence of the Iranian role in this bombing was presented in detail.

As I reported for AIM at the time, the trial involved a case brought against Iran by attorneys Steven Perles and Thomas Fortune Fay on behalf of the families of the Marines who were killed. Under a U.S. law passed in 1996, victims of terrorism can sue state sponsors of terrorism and collect damages from the assets that the terrorist regime may hold in the U.S.

The trial featured a videotaped deposition of a former terrorist insider named “Mahmoud,” who described in detail how Iran ordered the terrorists to attack the U.S. Marines and French troops in Lebanon, and revealed that the driver of the truck carrying the bomb was himself an Iranian.

In a videotaped deposition, former CIA officer Robert Baer testified that there was no doubt, based on the best intelligence information, that Iran was behind it. Baer said this bombing, and a previous bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, were “acts of war.”

Dr. Reuven Paz of Israel testified via videotape that before the Marine barracks bombing Israel had intercepted a message from the government of Iran to its Ambassador in Syria, calling for military attacks on the foreign forces in Lebanon, including the Americans. Paz, who worked for the Israeli security service known as Shin Bet, said the intercepted message was provided to the CIA.

Admiral James Lyons, who was Deputy Chief of Naval Operations at the time, testified that he received a copy of the message, which described the need for a “spectacular action” against the Marines. But he received the message two days after the bombing.

Sergeant Steve Russell, who was guarding the embassy on that fateful day, said he had been warned about a possible car bombing of the barracks literally hours before it happened. He warned others, and stayed alert. But, as a “peacekeeper” under restrictive rules of engagement, he carried an unloaded gun and the compound was surrounded only by concertina wire. The car bomber drove through all of this into the barracks.

This evidence was accepted by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who found Iran liable for billions of dollars in damages.

Not only did Zakara ignore all of this, he stated previously, in a Newsweek article, that “Iranians aren’t suicidal.” This seems to be a common theme of his, in order to justify a do-nothing approach to the Iranians developing nuclear weapons. He wants us to believe that the regime can be rational and calm.

Ironically, the article carried the title, “Everything You Know About Iran Is Wrong.”

The author of The Post-American World, Zakaria seems eager to usher in this state of affairs by permitting the rise of dangerous regimes such as Iran with nuclear capability. Interestingly, Obama was photographed in 2008 carrying a copy of Zakaria’s book.

Frighteningly, his bio promotes Zakaria as “the most influential foreign policy adviser of his generation” and one of the top 100 global thinkers in 2010. Not surprisingly, he addresses hedge fund billionaire George Soros, funder of Media Matters and other left-wing causes, on a first name basis as “George.”

In a February 2011 interview that covered Iran and other issues, Zakaria asked Soros about the survival of the Iranian regime, which was being challenged by pro-democracy demonstrators. Soros said he was “convinced that the regime will not survive.”

Zakaria asked if the U.S. could do anything to challenge the regime internally. Soros replied, “I think Obama did actually there also a very good job by refusing to get involved and to be instigating regime change. This—this attempt to impose a regime change from the outside is counterproductive, because then the regime can accuse its opponents as being in the pay of a—of a foreign power, right?”

Zakaria replied: “Right.”

Not only has the regime survived, but there are numerous reports that Iran is preparing to use suicide-bomb boats to disrupt shipping in the Gulf.

However, Zakaria assures us that the Iranians are not crazy and don’t engage in such things—at least over the last decade.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

The following is an email alert from Sovereignty activist Rosa Koire, on the rapid advancement of Agenda 21 in American neighborhoods and around the world.

You are witnessing a plan that is taking place all across the United States NOW.  It has many names but it’s the same plan. UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development: Sustainable Cities Strategy.  It is a regional plan that creates unelected boards of elected officials who are engaged in erasing the boundaries between cities, counties, and states.

You are losing your ability to influence your government policies at the same time that you are being solicited for your opinion. It’s a tactic to placate you. This is the Delphi method of manipulating groups and controlling populations that may protest. By 2050, or sooner, there will be 11 Mega-Regions in the United States that include parts of Mexico and Canada.  Local and state boundaries and jurisdictions will be dissolved. This is not a delusional rant.

This is a fact.  Go to www.America2050.org

What are these plans called?  Your government is using similar names for all of these plans and they are all the same: Regional.  They are being rolled out NOW.  The adoption date is MID-2013.  ALL OVER THE US.

Most of us are unaware that the plan we are fighting is the same plan, with minor variations, being imposed in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding public transportation, and funding low-income housing.  All plans include Smart Growth–high density housing with restrictions on personal space and car usage.  All plans support high speed trains–the building block of Mega-Regions.  All plans give power to regional transportation and planning boards (MPOs and COGs) through federal and state fund disbursements.  In all plans housing and transportation are now linked.  In all plans population projections are hugely inflated.  All plans will go forward as planned.  This is a planning revolution.

Here are just a few plans around the country using the word “VISION” a UN Agenda 21 buzz word.  Other plan names use variants on the sustainability jargon.  There are thousands of these plans and they all have a goal of transformation–a jargon term for destruction.

• One Valley One Vision (you’ll find this in Santa Clarita Valley, CA; Montana; and Dona Ana County / Las Cruces, New Mexico
• Nine Counties, One Vision (Tennessee)
• One Region One Vision (New York, and Indiana)
• Our Florida Our Visio
• One Bay Area (SF Bay Area–9 counties)
• Six Towns One Vision (Lycoming County)
• Five Counties One Vision (Minnesota)
• Four States One Vision (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas)

We need to use civil disobedience.  Refuse to accept these plans. They are not YOUR plan.  They are destroying our government and installing a new regime.  This is UN Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development / ICLEI.  Educate yourself and others.  This is war.  Join us at Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 in fighting for our freedom.

Not on our watch.
Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.
Action is the second step.

–
Rosa Koire, ASA
Executive Director
Post Sustainability Institute
www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com

We learned of this email from Dr. Eowyn of Fellowship of the Minds.

For critical further learning about Agenda 21, you may click that Gulag Bound tag. We suggest not just scrolling but paging down through the article titles. In them one will find “How Marxofascism is Being Systematically Implemented in American Neighborhoods,” including a key video by Ms. Koire.

Please look for those involved in your local Tea Party, and in economic development, zoning, and planning in your community or rural area. Also we recommend attending your municipal and county government council meetings and asking them questions. Time is very critical, this is late in the game.

Also, see “GOP Presidential Candidates on Agenda 21 ‘Sustainable Development.’”

Accuracy in Media

One can imagine that this is a sensitive topic at Fox News.

It is even more sensitive in view of what News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, is doing to its staff at the British newspaper, The Sun. As part of an internal investigation of phone-hacking and bribery, News Corporation voluntarily turned over information to police authorities.

Sun associate editor Trevor Kavanagh reports that “30 journalists have been needlessly dragged from their beds in dawn raids, arrested and held in police cells while their homes are ransacked.” He said journalists were being treated like members of a criminal gang and that freedom of the press was in danger.

If News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch would turn over his own journalists to authorities in Britain, why wouldn’t he sack Glenn Beck in response to an orchestrated campaign from George Soros and his operatives at Media Matters?

Beck has himself talked about Soros operatives making threats against his people, while a private investigator who interviewed News Corporation personnel confirmed some of them were living in fear. The channel was told to discontinue its probes into Soros and his financial interests.

When Beck left the channel and started GBTV on the Internet, a statement was issued that Beck and Fox would continue working on projects together. Nothing happened in this regard, although Beck has made some occasional appearances on the channel.

Commenting on The Daily Caller series and other reports, John Hudson of the Atlantic Wire writes, “The leftward shift or ‘course correction’ at Fox News in recent months could have several explanations but a pair of reports in Politico and The Daily Caller give credit to the cable network’s mortal enemy: Media Matters for America. It’s a thesis that Media Matters would gladly tout and Fox News would vehemently deny, but it comes as viewer complaints accumulate that the network is embracing a more mainstream conservatism compared with its previous embrace of Glenn Beck.”

The Daily Caller reported, “Glenn Beck, the former Fox News Channel host, drew the ire of a wide spectrum of liberal groups while his program aired nationally. But according to several people who watched the process from the inside, it was Media Matters that orchestrated much of the opposition to Beck.”

It quoted a former staffer as saying that the left-wing group Color of Change, co-founded by former White House “green jobs” czar Van Jones, received much of the credit for pressuring advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Beck’s show. But The Daily Caller said that in fact “Media Matters developed the campaign that cowed Beck’s sponsors” and provided a $200,000 grant to Citizen Engagement Laboratory, Color of Change’s parent group, to campaign against Beck.

Beck had exposed Jones on the air as a self-described communist engaged in anti-police and 9/11 “truth” activities. This led to his forced resignation from the Obama Administration. Thus, Jones had a vendetta against Fox.

George Soros, who was being subjected to scrutiny by Beck on his popular Fox News Channel program, had a vendetta as well. He personally gave $1 million to Media Matters to neutralize Beck and the conservative message of Fox News.

What has been the result? Complete success on the part of Media Matters and the Soros machine.

Number one—Beck is gone, replaced by a show, “The Five,” that includes Democratic Party operative Bob Beckel. Number two—Fox News now has two paid left-wing feminists on the air, Sally Kohn and Jehmu Greene, both graduates of Jane Fonda’s Women’s Media Center. And number three—it’s being reported that Fox News is developing a new program to be hosted by Greene called “The Greene Room.”

Greene ran the ACORN front-group Project Vote. ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief calls her the Fox News “infiltrator.”

What’s more, News Corporation chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch is now quoting Soros approvingly in regard to his economic thinking. Murdoch’s favorable tweet about Soros followed a flattering story about the hedge fund billionaire in The Wall Street Journal, another property of News Corporation.

The handwriting is on the wall. The “course correction” at the channel is being conducted at the direction, or with the approval, of Rupert Murdoch himself. But as Politico recently reported in a fairly comprehensive story by Keach Hagey, conservatives are definitely not happy with it. A Western Center for Journalism poll found that some 70 percent of conservatives thought the channel had moved to the left.

The issue, however, goes beyond the destruction of Fox News as a reliable conservative voice to the future of News Corporation. Rupert Murdoch has to be commended for bringing conservative news and information to people on a world-wide basis, with the Fox News Channel in the U.S. being the most visible manifestation of this.

But News Corporation’s own Wall Street Journal is reporting that the pressure on the company from the hacking and bribery investigation in Britain is mounting in the U.S., as the Obama/Holder Justice Department is also seriously looking at corruption charges against the media giant.

It appears that throwing Beck to the wolves didn’t stop the onslaught against News Corporation from powerful political interests. In short, the liberal/left may see an opportunity not only to take down Fox News but the whole company. Murdoch seems to think that throwing more journalists to the wolves is his way to avoid being eaten himself.

In a statement, News Corporation says it cooperated with the British Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in “a review” of The Times, The Sun and The Sunday Times, which are part of News International, the main UK subsidiary of News Corporation. It said the Management and Standards Committee (MSC) of the company “gave the MPS every assistance during the searches of News International premises while ensuring that all appropriate steps were taken to protect legal and journalistic privilege.” The statement added that “immediate legal representation” was offered to those arrested and that “News Corporation will continue to give its total support to the continued work of the MSC and to ensure that legitimate journalism is vigorously pursued in both the public interest and in full compliance with the law.”

But as we saw with the ouster of Glenn Beck, “legitimate journalism” that affects powerful political interests can be sacrificed when it is convenient to do so.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.